Interview
in [Java Help]
|
From: Ken T. on 4 Oct 2009 02:02 On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:34:25 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >> I'm very very glad not to be in the market for a job right now -- it >> sounds like job hunting's 10x worse than it was when I landed my >> present one. >> >> AT LEAST 10x worse. > > > The best jobs are never easy to get. It probably is 10x worse than a few years ago. Even if you aren't just targeting the best jobs. -- Ken T.
From: Mike Schilling on 4 Oct 2009 02:54 Lew wrote: > > - from /Everything I Need to Know as a Software Developer I Learned > as a Busboy/, by Lew Bloch. Both need to be good at cleaning up messes.
From: Martin Gregorie on 4 Oct 2009 05:19 On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:57:58 -0400, Eric Sosman wrote: > > When I'm writing a new method, I start with a nebulous > idea of what the thing is supposed to to (if I had no such notion, I > wouldn't have a reason to write the method at all). Step One is to write > a rough copy of what will eventually be the Javadoc; during the process > I discover the foggy patches in my nebulous idea, shine light into the > corner cases, and so on. Then I code the method (possibly coming up > with yet a few more tweaks along the way), and finally I turn the rough > draft into real Javadoc. (This is why even my private methods have doc > comments: They're my explanation to me of whatever folly I had in mind > at the time of coding.) > I also use this method and have done for some time. The only (slight) variation is that I write them as Javadocs with method stubs, so the file could theoretically be compiled at any time. The benefit is that you know the javadocs will be readable and (semi-sensible) before any code gets cut. I generally don't change the comments to suit the code, but then I try to make them contain enough background and description to serve as an introduction to the class for a newcomer. The same approach works well for C as well - of course! > But the crucial point is this: If you can't say what you > want the computer to do, your chances of getting it to do what you want > are considerably diminished. > I couldn't agree more. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
From: Leif Roar Moldskred on 4 Oct 2009 05:38 Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > It doesn't mean that a manager four or five > levels up needs to know how to write code, but they'd best be able to > listen to a technical architect without getting a glazed look in their > eyes. Of course, the reverse of that is also true: we as developers need to be able to talk to a manager without our eyes glazing over too, and _that_ is something too many of us haven't realised. -- Leif Roar Moldskred
From: Lew on 4 Oct 2009 09:54
Leif Roar Moldskred wrote: > Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> It doesn't mean that a manager four or five >> levels up needs to know how to write code, but they'd best be able to >> listen to a technical architect without getting a glazed look in their >> eyes. > > Of course, the reverse of that is also true: we as developers need to be > able to talk to a manager without our eyes glazing over too, and _that_ > is something too many of us haven't realised. We also need to avoid smoldering glares of fury. -- Lew |